UPDATE: Rich Lowry announces that NR has fired Derbyshire. After some nice compliments — "he’s a deeply literate, funny, and incisive writer" — and some half-compliments — he's "maddening, outrageous, cranky, and provocative" — Lowry calls the new piece "nasty and indefensible." NR would never have published it, yet the name, National Review, is getting used to inflate its prominence. "Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise." Lowry calls the article "so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation." Perhaps it is what Derbyshire wanted, and now he's got a powerful send-off.

In the wake of the Trayvon Martin’s shooting, many black parents have discussed the advice they give to their male children about not getting themselves shot in a misunderstanding with a white authority figure.

Um, George Zimmerman isn't "white" and isn't an "authority figure"

We live in a bizarro America.

And, the utter silence of white liberals on the crazy ramblings of some in the black community exacerbates the problems.

Key argument: "Why do conservatives catch such heat? It’s probably because there is still so much racism on the Right to go alongside valid arguments on issues relating to race and ethnicity. Conservatives so often get unfairly pounded on race because, so often, conservatives get fairly pounded on race.

And this is the Right’s own fault, because conservatives are not serious about draining the swamp."

Derbyshire has been running around saying racist things for nearly a decade. It's not a secret that he believes these things. And he happily keeps writing for NRO and no one every says anything about it (until now apparently).

Barro's argument about racism in the Republicans party could just as easily be about sexism or anti-gay bigotry, by the way.

“There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—and then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” -- Jessie Jackson

Most parents give the same advice as Derbyshire. It's just not printed for public viewing.

Now that the Professor has highlighted my comment, i should explain my thinking. Derbyshire can spew whatever filth he likes, that other site can print it. NRO needs to decide whether they want to be associated with Derbyshire after this comment. to the extent that they choose to maintain that association, they leave themselves, and conservatives in general open to charges like Andy's.

I recognize that whatever NRO decides (and that decision is unlikely to be made over Easter weekend), it will have no effect on what Andy says.

I smell a rat. John Derbyshire is a marginal figure, even among the National Review set he is a marginal figure. NBC is not so marginal. My guess is that the high horse cavalry will charge Derbyshire repeatedly and hack him to shreds. An occasional lancer will dismount and pay homage to NBC's brave firing of that producer who edited the tapes.

I had to look up who John Derbyshire was (notably, Wikipedia does not describe him as a conservative.

What an bizare and racist article. As far as I can tell, no white or otherwise non-black person in my peer group ever received any sort of talk about race (other than the standard "we love people even if they look different"), nor have I ever heard of any white parents in the present giving such a talk. Stay out of dangerous neighborhoods, sure - but that doesn't have to be about race.

The link sometimes doesn't work because it's probably being flooded with traffic. Everyone's reading this scumbag's racist rant because they cannot believe that is the sort of person employed by the National Review.

Well, not everyone. Somehow it has escaped InstaPundit's attention, even though he gives his 2 cents on virtually everything in the news. InstaPundit sometimes isn't so "insta" because his main concern is what the best strategy for dealing with it should be.

Some folks have dug up Derbyshire's past essays and it turns out he's been hinting at how big a racist he is for many years at the leading conservative magazine. And yet Rich Lowry has to think it over for the weekend before he gives him the boot? Well, then I conclude that, so long as Lowry is in charge at The National Review, it should be regarded as a racist institution.

It's funny that after Obama simply said he wants to make sure the George Zimmerman case is being handled properly that a lot of right wingers flipped out and some are revealing their true colors.

I have links at ChicagoBoyz. Derb is good at objective discussion. Very few of the complainers would be capable of understanding his math books, or I suspect, of understanding what he said here. The PC witchhunters probably are having an acute reaction to unvarnished truth. If not, I recommend Charles Bronson's advice in "Death wish". "Take a walk on Columbus Avenue at midnight." Or your own local equivalent.

Derbyshire is seriously ill with cancer and says he often lacks the energy or will to write. My guess is he figures he doesn't have much more time left on the planet so he might as well write what he truly thinks--God knows Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson never hide their opinions under a bushel basket.

Anyway, as I was saying (and as others have said), it's a bit rich for NR to do the whole Captain Renault "shocked, shocked!" routine now, as Derbyshire has been making no secret of his views for the past decade or so.

Derbyshire has been running around saying racist things for nearly a decade. It's not a secret that he believes these things. And he happily keeps writing for NRO and no one every says anything about it (until now apparently).

Several of Althouse's regular commenters approve of the racism. I saw the late last night in two of the other threads, after I brought it up. And I see that today.

When I read the Derbyshire article the congressional black caucus came to mind. Feeling badly about that I thought I'd regain the high ground by reading Obama's statements of outrage about black on white violence.I'm still looking for one.

But it is OK for blacks to notice that blacks commit a lot of crime. That's jes keepin' it real, yo.

When whites notice that blacks commit a lot of crime, that's raaaaaaaacist!

There's a pretty big difference between pointing it out in a political discussion (or comedy routine which focuses on public policy issues) and teaching it as a life-lesson to your children as a warning to prejudge people based on their color, as opposed to their actions, how they present themselves, etc.

Remove color, and dangerous people are still pretty easy to spot. If you saw a black man who looks like Pres. Obama on one side of the street, and a white man with saggy pants and a hoodie on the other, you'd sure as heck walk on the Obama lookalike's side.

I've never been a fan of Derbyshire for many reasons, but when the charges of racism start flying fast & furious it's a good idea to point out that:

Both righties and lefties agree that the American Black community is messed up big time.

They only disagree on

1) The causes of that communal dysfunction.2) The remedies.

Is Derbyshire a racist? I this so, yes, in the classical & common sense of the term. Do we, as a society miss the bigger tragedy at the heart of our country because we have whipping boys like Derbyshire to wax uselessly virtuous over while infant black children die in their homes from stray gang bullets. You sure as hell betcha!

Ah come on, Althouse. Surely you can do better than a lame P&S? Point and sputter is beneath you.

What's really weird, though, is why the NRO pearl-clutchers are pretending to be so scandalized by Derbyshire's opinions. It's not like he's been keeping his (perfectly defensible) views secret all these years.

The relevance, I suppose, to the fellow being married to an Asian woman is that his version of the "talk" is being given to teenaged boys who are members of a racial minority.

I followed a number of the links to "the talk" and I'm not all that impressed by the anecdotes. I think that it's entirely possible that white boys, when stopped by police or questioned by someone in the neighborhood, have been brought up to be abjectly submissive. Who argues with cops and expects not to get into more trouble? The "white" version of the "talk" is very likely to be "if you dress like a hoodlum, people will think you're up to no good." or "If you're stopped by a traffic cop you say, "sir" and don't give him any attitude." Yet the linked examples of "the talk" suggest that telling your boy not to look like a hoodlum and to never ever let your temper flare if you're stopped by a cop for no reason, they suggest that this is a particular burden of being black.

It's just not.

Being stopped more *often* may be, but there isn't a white boy alive who is free to be surly or antagonistic to the police.

I've always been curious about how Ann feels about how bigoted her regular commenters here are, and this seems like a good time to ask.

Ann, what do you think about the extreme racism and anti-gay bigotry from so many of the folks who like to hang around your blog? Do you feel bad about not calling them out more often for their hateful and destructive opinions? Do you wonder why they like your blog so much? Do you wish they would leave, or at least not be so open about their bigotry in your comment section?

The crazyness of Derbtshire's approach to skin color as the only mark of judgement IS profiling.

Sane men know that most less than pure white skin color folks are wonderful and safe people. Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain are examples in Georgia of better men than Derbyshire.

If Derbyshire had a brain cell that was not under Nazi Mind Control forces, he would understand that the darker skinned races in the USA have been interbred and mixed with Nordics since before Tommy Jefferson's time.

It is not only unwise to boldly say Charles Manson was right all along, it exposes one to be evil like Manson.

Taki's has always been "controversial", to say the least, although Taki himself is eminently readable (or used to be) and has a seemingly endless trove of ribald stories of the great and near great of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, not the least of which is his piece on the death of Errol Flynn.

I read the whole piece. I can only say that I apply #10 to white people, as much as anyone else.

And so do most here, I'm guessing.

Andy R. said...

Should he have said more?

That probably would have made it awkward for all of the racist conservatives

That still leaves all the racist Lefties.

I guess many readers missed the fact that Derb is married to a Chinese woman

What does this have to do with anything?

Apparently, it hasn't occurred to Hatman that the Chinese are another race.

Figures.

PS Waiting to see how many Lefty outlets are going to jettison people for their racist drivel during the last few weeks.

There's a pretty big difference between pointing it out in a political discussion (or comedy routine which focuses on public policy issues) and teaching it as a life-lesson to your children as a warning to prejudge people based on their color, as opposed to their actions, how they present themselves, etc.

Well, of course Derb's essay is political satire, it's not seriously intended to be something you go over line by line with your kids as an educational tool or something.

I loved the part about making black friends so that you can claim that "Some of my best friends are black!" when someone accuses you of racism.

Andi, you may have missed the earlier post in which Ann quoted a poll:

Most Americans of all racial backgrounds believe in the divinity of Christ, but black adults share this belief even more than white adults and adults of other races.

You have stated that one must be "stupid" to believe such a "fairy tale". Can we conclude from your earlier statements and this survey data that you think black adults are more stupid than white adults and adults of other races?

Lyssa: There's a pretty big difference between pointing it out in a political discussion (or comedy routine which focuses on public policy issues) and teaching it as a life-lesson to your children as a warning to prejudge people based on their color,

Yes, there's a pretty big difference between noting disproportionate crime rates by race and noting an individual's characteristics beyond race. In fact, these two things are so different that it's perfectly possible to do both, to the same person, depending on the circumstances and the amount of time one has to observe them, without one's being in the least bit inconsistent, irrational, or "racist".

In fact, it's pretty obvious from reading the article that Derbyshire grasps this - that the necessary quick judgments we sometimes have to make about other people's behaviors (aka "profiling", "stereotyping") can be put aside when we have the leisure and safety to size up people as individuals.

The only people who seem to be having difficulties grasping this distinction are the people criticizing Derbyshire. Please point out to me where in his article he advises his children to "prejudge people based on their color" full stop, end of story, no matter what the circumstance and how much time they have to cultivate an acquaintance.

Well, of course Derb's essay is political satire, it's not seriously intended to be something you go over line by line with your kids as an educational tool or something.

I didn't really read it as satire, though I was sort of wondering if that might have been the intent. I don't get the impression that Lowery did, either. (Funny, though, I recall the Ann Coulter incident and read her statements immediately as satire or something like it.)

If it was indeed intended to be satire, I think that it fails. There's no "aha!", no parody of anything, nothing to make it clear where the line was between what the author believed and where he was drawing the line, no humor. Perhaps he started off with satire in mind, but then got so caught up in the "hard truths" he was addressing that he failed to follow through?

Oh cut the BS Andy. If you're going to cast aspersions on the regular commenters here, accusing us of "extreme racism and anti-gay bigotry," be specific.

A "bunch" of Althouse commenters have been mobys, too.

The Althouse blog is not PC. Althouse has a very liberal (in the best original sense of the word) free speech policy. Thank goodness for that. I have disagreed and gotten into arguments here in the past with individual commenters on race or gay issues (among others). They have their say, I have my say. That's as it should be. I don't feel threatened or offended by those disagreements.

If you have a problem with what someone here says, speak up and take it up with them. Disagree, debate, refute, rebuke. It's pathetic to generalize in the abstract and accuse the commenters here-- your *fellow* commenters, since you are something of a regular now too-- of "extreme" racism and anti-gay bigotry.

Andy, like many lily-white "progressives", probably gives religious blacks a pass on their "fairy tale" beliefs because he views them as simple-minded, lesser beings who don't know any better. Or, more probably, he uses the whole "racist" routine as a tool to punish those who he's prejudiced against. Blacks are just a source of votes and a blunt instrument of convenience, used to beat back opponents.

Please point out to me where in his article he advises his children to "prejudge people based on their color" full stop, end of story, no matter what the circumstance and how much time they have to cultivate an acquaintance.

He recommended making the snap judgements based upon seeing people who might be in need of help, who might provide service to you, and strangers on the street. While he certainly conceded that there are plenty of blacks out there that are not a problem, he entirely did recommend prejudging based on the color of skin and nothing else in those circumstances. There was no discussion about evaluating the situation in those circumstances; it was color and color alone.

You can give all of the same warnings that he gave about avoiding dangerous situations without putting it into the context of skin color. He did exactly the opposite. What he recomended was textbook racial prejudice - he said that the children should pre-judge based on race.

Lyssa: You can give all of the same warnings that he gave about avoiding dangerous situations without putting it into the context of skin color.

And that leads to situations like the one I encountered in Berkeley 30 years ago. A guy was climbing into the windows of single women (often elderly) and raping them.

He had done this dozens of times. He'd raped so many women the police had a good description of him along with an artist's rendition, which they then proceeded to post on utility poles all over west Berkeley. The only thing missing from the fliers was the fact that the assailant was black. In Berkeley in those days you couldn't say that a black rapist was black.

From listening to some of the comments here it seems that someone of us would like to return to those days.

I found the Derbyshire comments somewhat enjoyable for their directness, and refreshing for their honesty. We will never make progress on racism if anytime one side brings it up, the other denigrates them. That response only draws angers from the originator of the comments.

One of the first things I suggest working on is why both sides get worked up from just words pronounced by people they usually don't like.

To say "They made me mad" is one of the most childish things a person can say. No one is in charge of your feelings but you. To say otherwise admits you need to do some growing up. I never understood why someone would allow, even metaphorically, that a stranger can play them like a violin(I can see Crack shaking his head).

Excuse me for pointing this out, but AndyR, is a perfect example of this.(not to single you out Andy). But when someone posts anything anti-PC, Andy is there to mock that person, and conservatives in general. While it is a tactic, it's just not a very effective one.

One must wonder what Andy's motives are.(again, not to single him out). They aren't to persuade. You don't make fun of people you are trying to persuade to your side.

Mr. Derbyshire may be called racist, but not knowing anything about him, I can't say. I will for one thing have to look up this other "speech" that black people have. He may be just a misunderstood satirist.(if the speech is "Say yes Sir, no Sir", to the police, I'll be happily surprised. That's hat I was taught)

Ps.Rascism, as I pointed out last night is practiced by all races, but more so by poor people. A way to blame someone else by personalizing lifes tribulations. Better to blame a concrete someone else, than poor personal choices, because blaming yourself is to admit YOU fucked up, and that's not something we like to admit about ourselves.

Pps.Don't lie to the police. They hear them every day, and are annoyed when people think them stupid. The biggest thing a cop wants to do every day is just go home.

Contemporary multicultural societies have established a number of taboos … tribalism and prejudices are opposed at times reflexively despite the potentially high cost of diverse societies in terms of trust and solidarity.

National Review is afraid of blacks, or they would have taken the essay as a starting point for a discussion.

Lopez completely ruined the NRO site.

Two disagreements with Derbyshire:

A mathematical nit, namely that normal distributions give any answer you want when you compare populations, depending on where in the tails you take the comparison, so that fact is pretty arbitrary.

The second is that 5% hostile people leading 50% who passively go along isn't peculiar to black mobs. Orwell said it's how you control the 50% of any group, and to watch out for it.

Like the fire-Derbyshire reaction follows the 5% 50% rule, as does modern Islam, as does the conservative right ain't-it-awful crowd.

The conservative position on black mobs, as on Islam, is that they have really awful "leaders," working against the interst of blacks and Muslims.

Derbyshire, on profiling, is stuck with a mathematical truth, Bayes' theorem, and that's why he gives the advice he gives. When all you know is skin color, these are the odds today, and he gives them, probably correctly.

Read, by comparison, Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell on what the awful 50s were like, before black leaders took over. Something went badly wrong.

Crack, so you read it and liked it? I guess you must agree that blacks, as a race, are losers when it comes to basic intelligence, since five out of six whites are more intelligent than the average black (point 11). And since "life is an IQ Test," I guess it's no mistake that everywhere you look on the planet, black people are on the bottom and white people on top because, hey, that's our genetic destiny. Really, you're OK with that? Because Derb is, and you don't have to read too deeply between the lines to see that this is exactly what he's saying.

FWIW, I left the following message with Rich Lowry, editor of National Review:

Rich, Derb’s pseudo-scientific screed went way over the line. I know he likes to play the cantankerous misanthrope, but these are exactly the type of views that WFB ensured were never associated with National Review.

I’m sure that severing a relationship with a contributor is never easy, but for what it’s worth, this long-time NR reader believes it is warranted in this case. Derbyshire is now more than an embarrassment to the magazine or NRO; his presence as a regular NR contributor undermines your credibility on every political and cultural issue that touches even remotely on race. In fact, it undermines NR’s ability to criticize Barack Obama, since it bolsters progressives’ (fallacious) argument that conservative opposition to Obama simply reflects racial animus.

I believe you when you say no one at National Review shares Derb’s appalling views, but I hope your actions will match your words. For the good of the magazine, Derbyshire should be fired.

And that's the real problem for NR; keeping Derb on board will undermine them every time they try to take on this President, and provide ready ammo to their political opponents. All of which hopefully means that his days at NR are numbered.

Gene @4:53, that's not comparable. In the Berkeley case they omitted a very significant physical description of the specific individual they were looking for. That's obviously ridiculous-- PC ad absurdum. To say a perp is black is no more a matter of prejudgment or prejudice than to say he has red hair or a tattoo.

The comparable to what Lyssa is talking about would be telling your daughters to especially beware men of a certain race because they're more likely to be rapists. That would be really bad advice, even if-- arguendo-- it were based on some statistical truth (NB it's *not*): because it would terribly distort her sense of what she should be alert for, what situations she should avoid, leave her unguarded when she should be on guard; and would also be psychologically toxic to her and her relations with people of other races in the future. That's a damaging lesson to teach your children for diverse reasons-- damaging to your children first of all.

His essay was pretty ugly, but I'm so tired of white people yelling at each other about race! He misses a big point: what does IQ score have to do with moral values or civic virtues anyway? I'd rather have a dumb nice neighbor than a smart jerk.

And yes, like Lyssa, when I see anyone dressed like a thug, I cross the street. And I don't jog at night to "take back the streets" either.

Lyssa: He recommended making the snap judgements based upon seeing people who might be in need of help, who might provide service to you, and strangers on the street.

Yes, he recommended making snap judgments when one has to make snap judgments about something.

While he certainly conceded that there are plenty of blacks out there that are not a problem, he entirely did recommend prejudging based on the color of skin and nothing else in those circumstances.

In those circumstances.

There was no discussion about evaluating the situation in those circumstances;

Because those circumstances did not provide the leisure for anything beyond snap judgments.

...it was color and color alone.

Color, like sex, a valid empirical category for making quick judgments about the probability of danger in a given circumstance. I doubt very seriously that you have never used it yourself in such evaluations.

You can give all of the same warnings that he gave about avoiding dangerous situations without putting it into the context of skin color.

Sure, because indulging in meta-pretzel-proxy obfuscations of simple sociological fact at all times has never been known to cause any kind of social harm. Because heaven knows that if I told my children to be leery of, say, any sudden appearance of large numbers of black teens at the state fair gates, they'd immediately start believing that the black professionals in our middle-class neighborhood are dangerous ghetto thugs. Because they're just that stupid.

What he recomended was textbook racial prejudice....

Many modern textbooks on the subject of racial prejudice are written by race-hustling loons, so that doesn't surprise me in the least.

My impression was that it was a satire in which he inverted anti-white comments, point by point, in an article written by a black woman. This should not be taken more seriously than Swift's Modest Proposal.

Yes. I've always thought the black "talk" was racist and untrue, too. I've said it before and I'll say it again - you're all insane about race. MLK matters nothing to any of you. Agitating is everything. Under these circumstances, I see no reason not to tell white kids this. You deserve each other. And to kill each other - which is the only result you're getting. You're asking for it. You're begging for it. I'm laughing at you all.

I guess you must agree that blacks, as a race, are losers when it comes to basic intelligence, since five out of six whites are more intelligent than the average black (point 11).

Not necessarily, because I find everybody pretty stupid these days, but the assertion is nothing I'm getting my panties into a twist over. I'm a Freedom Of Speech guy, not a Fire Them If They Use It person. One is an American. I don't know what the other one is, but I don't want them around me.

Personally, I like our creed - I don't know why you don't.

And since "life is an IQ Test," I guess it's no mistake that everywhere you look on the planet, black people are on the bottom and white people on top because, hey, that's our genetic destiny.

You're exaggerating. It's not "everywhere you look" - the president is black - and, I'm sure, every white man on the planet would love to trade places with Michael Jordan.

Genetic destiny is a motherfucker. I'm smarter than most. Still haven't amounted to much, but I'm not threatened by talk. That said:

My next thought is, why are you more upset about this than I am? And why the expectation everyone has to be so? Or that I, specifically, have to? Do I have a right to my own opinions?

And why must Derb be fired? Why go right to that? What happened to a reprimand? The suggestion of an apology? Clarification?

Basically, I guess I'm wondering, what are you trying to prove - and to who?

Really, you're OK with that? Because Derb is, and you don't have to read too deeply between the lines to see that this is exactly what he's saying.

I loathe people who spend their time reading "between the lines" (thinking their fever-brained suggestions of what others are saying are somehow more valid than what was actually said) because they rarely seem to understand that's what crazy people do, though it's usually the case. Unlike you, I think I know "exactly what he's saying" because I read "exactly what he's saying" - not because I made up a subtext based on my own prejudices.

Anyway, he got fired - congratulations.

As far as I'm concerned, we've completely "lost the plot" as a nation.

I say it is , but if it's not, then a lot of Yankees owe a lot of Southerners an apology.

The predominant beliefs in America for over 150 years were that Teutonic was good and all other races were inferior

They were?

If so, tg better find a new way to explain how the Union Army lost the battle of Chancellorsville other than Hooker's staff refusing to let "a damned Dutchman tell them what to do" because he reported Jackson moving up on the Union flank.

Only Hibernian was as bad as Teutonic in this country until after WWI.

And a "squarehead" or a red-headed Mick was as identifiable as a "Celestial" or a black man in them days.

I agree "the talk" to black kids is stupid and untrue, but you don't fight stupidity with stupidity.

And I'm just fine with free speech, not stopping Derb from saying what he wants - just want him to stop piggybacking off a respected institution's capital when he does it, because that institution doesn't agree with what he's saying, which means they should give him the boot - and they did.

I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone - I just recognize Derb's screed for what it is: right-wing tribalism and collectivism, and therefore every bit as stupid as left-wing tribalism and collectivism. He is saying one tribe (the white race) is superior to another (the black race), and it's all because of genetics, and I happen to think that's an amazingly stupid and frankly indefensible opinion. Sure he can say it, but he shouldn't be surprised if he becomes marginalized after he does.

Genetics is not destiny, not for an individual, and sure as hell not for a race of millions of individuals. What anyone does with their life depends far more on character, effort, imagination and a lot of other things that are completely independent of their genetic endowment. That's where I'm coming from, but Derb (while allowing for statistical variation within a population) puts everyone in a racial box, which he believes constrains and defines their aptitudes and potential - again, an amazingly stupid view, and I'm glad Lowry called bullshit on it.

If someone here thinks it's stupid to think that a person's race (or for race, read ethnicity) is determinative of his destiny, do you also think that it's stupid to think that a person's class is determinative of his destiny?

Because if you do, --- congratulations!! --- you just kicked to the curb the Marxist foundation of a system of thought that not only ruled over a billion people, but also held thousands of first-world intellectuals in its thrall for about a hundred years.

History will no doubt wonder how an intelligentsia that rejected racism as the depths of imbecility thought that classism was the engine of history.

The issue is ressurecting the 1880s segregation codes enforced by social shunning and terroristic threats.

And that's an issue... how?

Say, for the sake of argument, that it was scientifically proven that the same gene that causes naturally dark skin also causes a natural reduction in reasoning ability. Explain how you get from that to "1880s segregation codes enforced by social shunning and terroristic threats".

The tragic irony is that John Derbyshire and Jesse Jackson, not to mention a few reformed Black Panthers (old, not New), would agree. If Americans don't get it yet, then they never will. There are initial prejudices deriving from fear, distrust, envy, and diverging loyalty between different populations. In a functional society, those prejudices are overcome through normal relations. This should already have come to pass in America. It has not because of a human and civil rights movement which has been tainted with prejudice. It has not because of policies which enforce institutional discrimination by race, gender, etc. It has not because of policies to effect redistributive and retributive change, which are principal sponsors of corruption. It has not because of policies which denigrate individual dignity and devalue human life. The outcome of "good intentions" has been progressive corruption of individuals and society. The most recent contributions have been by our president and attorney general who have seen fit to emphasize our differences through their expression of selective indignation. People have gone from correcting for one set of extremes, real and perceived, to another, more progressive extreme. This is the inevitable outcome of an ambiguous and generational pursuit of progress. For some reason, Americans thought they would be immune from this corruptive influence.

I condemned both right-wing and left-wing tribalists and collectivists. Yes, saying that someone's class determines their destiny is one of the stupidest, most destructive beliefs in history. The left has a hard time saying this in public anymore, and instead moved onto race, gender and sexuality to define their preferred categories of collective victims. In the process, they have largely grabbed the racist torch from the right. But the old right racists who believe in the inherent inferiority of non-whites are still out there, although they're a meager and pathetic bunch.

@ Paco Wove...I have always been mildly insane. I love intellectual discussion and other points of view.

But the Divider-in-Chief's influence seems to have gotten us Conservatives so agitated lately that many of us are turning from otherwise intellectual discussion into gang initiation mode requiring that others defend some very bad ideas or lose admittance to the clubhouse.

It is in times like these that I do hang very tightly onto reality as I have lived through it. And my reality has been mildly insane, if never boring.

There was no discussion about evaluating the situation in those circumstances; it was color and color alone.

I think its assumed you already do a threat assessment. So, everything else being equal, color does come into play as a factor - because blacks are more likely to form into racist packs and attack whites.

oh wait. [obligatory statement of equivalence about how scary people can be white]. Okay, better now.

Really, if there's any racism, its coming from the blacks. This is just advice on how not to be targeted because of your race. They burned a white kid alive last week

Andy, one of the consequences of you being a religious bigot is that you don't get to hector people about racism and bigotry.

We've been over this before here.

There is a difference between saying"I hate black people because they are black or I think black people are stupid because they are black."and"I think religious people are dumb for believing in fairy tales."

Let me know if you don't understand the difference between those two things and I'll be happy to clarify.

WRT Coulter, she said "convert them to Christianity," and everyone expected the Spanish Inquisition. NR was largely Papist, so naturally they thought of Afghans roasting on an open fire. I thought they were looking for an excuse to fire her for some unknown reason, but maybe they really are just pearl-clutchers.

Rev...Derbyshire is rebuilding the foundational ideas that were the core of the Separate But Equal justification for Southern Segregation called the Black Codes enacted after Reconstruction.

So Derbyshire's ideas have three problems: They are immoral, and when they are State enforced they are illegal, and they will not work again, except as grab for a niche market in book sales, cable TV guests appearances and right wing blogs.

It's interesting to watch the lefties defend blacks by saying "They are just as good as whites."

Once again, most commenters totally miss the difference between individuals (some of my best friends are..) And statistical means. Charles Murray had the same problems with The Bell Curve. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that Asian kids have a higher mean IQ than whites. I know approximately what my own IQ is and Asian kids are no threat to me. I don't even worry that mathematicians, like Derbyshire, do their best work before age 30 (I am 74).

It is interesting to see the comments over at the Taki blog which invoke religious-type sentimants to assert an equality that the commenters don't believe.

Poor blacks. What would they do without white leftists to take care of them?

yashu: The comparable to what Lyssa is talking about would be telling your daughters to especially beware men of a certain race because they're more likely to be rapists. That would be really bad advice, even if-- arguendo-- it were based on some statistical truth (NB it's *not*):

Um, no.

...because it would terribly distort her sense of what she should be alert for, what situations she should avoid, leave her unguarded when she should be on guard;

No, it wouldn't. Seriously, on what evidence do you base this absurd assertion? If one's daughter should happen upon some FBI rape stats, the mere fact of knowing that a disproportionate number of rapes are committed by blacks will now make her helpless prey to criminally-inclined white or Chinese boys? ("Oh no, honey, she saw that article about racial differences in crime rates! There's no warning her about dangers from other sources now!)

By that logic I guess we can't tell her that there are rapists out there at all, because then she'll distrust all men, and naïvely trust all women.

...and would also be psychologically toxic to her and her relations with people of other races in the future.

No, it wouldn't. Honestly, you talk about your children like they're complete cretins.

Andy, one of the consequences of you being a religious bigot is that you don't get to hector people about racism and bigotry.

We've been over this before here.

There is a difference between saying"I hate black people because they are black or I think black people are stupid because they are black."and"I think religious people are dumb for believing in fairy tales."

Let me know if you don't understand the difference between those two things and I'll be happy to clarify.

No, moron, no difference. You're an intellectual bigot - problem is, it's as big a fairy tale as you think religion is because you're one of the most superficial, mentally lazy, and intellectually vapid people this side of the Golfer-In-Chief.

The real issue is that you're so insecure you have to attack anybody who disagrees with you in any way, shape, or form.

Everyone from my University Ethnic Studies professor to Eric Holder keeps wanting a "national discussion on race." Well, some folks like Derb have been having that discussion for years. Derb proves we either don't want a discussion or we will have the discussion only under the terms dictated by folks like Holder.

Derb, Sharpton, Holder, Obama, have a point of view on race. Having a point of view is the beginning of a discussion. Holder is right, we are cowards about race.

Am I allowed to call people dumb for believing in Scientology? Like if someone believes in Xenu and the volcano and all of that, can I say they are an idiot?

Or because it's a "religious belief" does that mean they can't be criticized for it? People who think that we can criticize people for their beliefs about politics and science and art and any other topic but that religion is somehow out of bounds have never explained to me why that is the case.

If you tell me that UFO's visit earth and take people into their ships for experiments I will think you are just as much of an idiot as if you think zombie jesus came back to life and wandered around the middle east after being crucified.

Why is it ok to think people are dumb for any belief that they hold except for religious ones? I've never heard an answer to this question. Maybe you can answer it.

2. The most vicious form of racism is when a white person is falsely accused of being a racist.

3. On rare occasions, a black person can be a victim of racism, but this only occurs when a prominent black conservative is criticized for, well, for pretty much anything. In that case, the criticism can only be motivated by the racism that liberals feel in their hearts, unlike conservatives, who all believe in the equality of all people.

'Why is it ok to think people are dumb for any belief that they hold except for religious ones? I've never heard an answer to this question. Maybe you can answer it.'

Maybe it's because thinking someone is dumb for any other belief usually includes a reason. If I say "it's dumb to think you can mouth off to the traffic cop and not get a ticket" or "it's dumb not to study" or something else, it usually involves common sense and known consequences.

In order for it to be "dumb" nearly everyone ought to know better or be able to know better if they give the belief a second thought. Certainly a person can be wrong without being dumb.

It's not obvious that there is no God, and it's far from obvious that the act of following a religion hurts a person or weakens a community, in the general way of things.

As an example, when someone, as some people tend to do, starts to insist that civilization is going to end because of irrational religious belief... that's *dumb*... because it's rather obvious in an in-your-face sort of way, that religious social structures *built* civilization. It's dumb to argue that religious belief, because it is based on unreason, will bring it all down.

I'd be the last to argue that religious belief is good for it's own sake or that the benefits are uniform. Beliefs can be destructive. Arguments involving specifics are less dumb than the ones that ignore blatantly obvious history.

Rev...Derbyshire is rebuilding the foundational ideas that were the core of the Separate But Equal justification for Southern Segregation called the Black Codes enacted after Reconstruction.

Even if that was true -- and it isn't -- you're missing something obvious:

What demolished the "separate but equal" mentality wasn't the realization that all races are equal in all respects. It was the realization that all members of all races were entitled to the same rights.

Even if it was, somehow, scientifically proven that Race X is "inferior" to Race Y, "separate but equal" would remain invalid, both legally and philosophically.

1) people are tribal. 2) stereotypes are rooted in truth.3) parents want to protect their kids more than they want to be be PC.4) some stuff that people say and think all the time looks pretty bad in print.

Blacks score 200 points or so below whites on standardized tests. 72% of black kids are born out of wedlock. Blacks represent 13% of the population but 55% of the murder victims. The ratio of black on white crime is multiples higher than white on black. Cities like Detroit, Gary, ID, and Baltimore are hellholes. The hood is a scary place - otherwise, you wouldn't see black professionals getting out of dodge.

"2. The most vicious form of racism is when a white person is falsely accused of being a racist."

False accusations undermine whatever is real. It's a "cry wolf" problem. If someone who is concerned with racism is not concerned by false accusations, then they're probably not concerned about racism at all, but are mostly concerned with demonstrating their own purity and goodness in public ways.

"3. On rare occasions, a black person can be a victim of racism, but this only occurs when a prominent black conservative is criticized for, well, for pretty much anything. In that case, the criticism can only be motivated by the racism that liberals feel in their hearts, unlike conservatives, who all believe in the equality of all people."

Here's the thing. The research does show african americans with intelligence that's one standard deviation below whites, it does show african americans with a higher rate of violent crime, and it does show poverty that's concentrated in african american societies.The competence of african american politicians is up for discussion. That they are overwhelmingly democrat is not in their favor.As to the cause of these things, I don't know what it is. But the reaction to this piece reflects on our discomfort with race.

In order for it to be "dumb" nearly everyone ought to know better or be able to know better if they give the belief a second thought.

On this point we disagree. I think nearly everyone ought to know better. I think it's obvious when you look at the Book of Mormon or the scientology books by L Ron Hubbard or the rantings of David Koresh or the Koran or the Old Testament or any other book that they were written by humans. Apparently everyone doesn't see it that way.

So this means that we disagree about how obvious it is that God isn't real. We probably agree that people who think that aliens built the pyramids are dumb. And we probably agree on lots of issues about how dumb the people are who believe in those things.

But maybe we disagree on how dumb people are being who think the Book of Mormon is the word of God. I think those people are being extremely extremely dumb. Maybe you think they are only a little dumb. Or maybe you're mormon yourself. I have no idea. But if all we're doing is disagreeing on the level of dumbness of religious people, then I don't understand how that makes me a bigot. Am I a religious bigot for thinking that people who believe in scientology and xenu and the volcano are dumb? Just because Americans grew up in a culture where zombie jesus was normalized, it doesn't make belief in him any less dumb.

I understand people who might disagree with me or think I'm wrong when I say that believing in fairy tales is dumb, but I didn't see anything in your answer that would explain why I'm being bigoted when I say that. In fact, you didn't use the word bigot(ry) in your answer so maybe you weren't trying to explain why I'm a religious bigot at all.

They hate Geraldo because Geraldo has admitted that Geraldo tells his children not to wear a hoodie. They hate Derb because Derb cares more about the welfare of Derb's children than he does for Andy R.'s Bullying PC self-inflated rage.

Obama and Holder and their crowd came to our nation's capital with an unexpected historical opportunity and instead chose to sink to their lowest common denominator and reward the race hustlers. When that has been pointed out, they double down.

Doubling down on evil. It is what Liberals do. It is what Obama and Holder and Andy R. Do. Let's be clear. It is not what Derb did.

It's not obvious that there is no God, and it's far from obvious that the act of following a religion hurts a person or weakens a community, in the general way of things.

The problem I have with that argument is that there are plenty of religious beliefs that people -- even people who believe in God -- have no problem labeling "dumb" or "nutty". For example, if I told you I worshiped the aliens that live in Area 51, you would immediately assume one of the following:

1. I was crazy2. I was putting you on

The thought "that is a faith-based religious belief as valid as my own belief in God" would occur to you belatedly, if it occurred to you at all.

The reason it is considered unacceptable to label religious beliefs as "dumb" is simply that the beliefs are widespread, and as humans we are predisposed to accept "most people believe it" as equivalent to "it is probably true". Religious beliefs are open to attack in inverse proportion to how popular they are in the community.

Who died and made you arbiter? Just because you don't buy doesn't make you smart. They could be right and that makes you really dumb.

I didn't realize you were so post-modern.

So I think that every single religion looks exactly the way we think it would if it were invented by humans. Therefore, I think people are dumb to think that every single religion except their own was, in fact, made up by people wanting to scare/control/profit from gullible people except their own one chosen religion that they think god secretly came up with but disguised to make it look exactly as if humans had done it.

It seems the proper response is to explain why it's not dumb to believe in this fairy tale instead of calling me a religious bigot.

People who agree with me that believing in Xenu or the mormon hoax is dumb but then call me a bigot for saying the old testament is a fairy tale confuse me the most.

I finally got to read the piece. I'd say that it was a racist tract. I wouldn't argue with some of his points, but, taken as a whole, the point of his piece seems to be "how do I hate black people? Let me count the ways." Derbyshire is over the line.....I'm an old man. Racial relations are much better now than when I was young, and I anticipate that they will get better in the future provided everyone keeps their claws retracted while bargaining. I include not just Derbyshire in this class. Zimmerman, at worst, was guilty of manslaughter, but the hatred that is directed at him is out of all proportion to his crime.

Unless I'm mistaking the Coulter column in question, what she said was perfectly reasonable, and would have thought so by the vast majority of Americans (and Europeans fwiw) before the West decided that committing suicide was the way to go.

There is certainly a few kernels of truth scattered throughout the piece but I think it's clear that Derbyshire stepped over the line of what's acceptable in 2012.

Could we argue about where the line is and whether it's fair for a multitude of black writers to express their distrust of whites and police officers (not necessarily the same) in the pages of major newspapers? Sure, we could argue about that.

Unfortunately, it's 2012, Barack Obama is itching to gin up a race conflict, and the Democrats are looking for kindling for their fire. Writing about race requires great delicacy, something that Derbyshire has completely tossed aside with both content and presentation. How could he think that by hyperlinking phrases he would convey the information buried in those links? If you want to make arguments, you might want to include the details in what you write. All in all, it's a disappointing end to his career with National Review. I've always found him an interesting writer and I'm sad to see him take this path.

Black people in this country are disproportionately likely to be religious. You think religious people are dumb. That has to mean you think black people in this country are disproportionately likely to be dumb.

John Derbyshire draws a similar conclusion from black performance on IQ tests.

There are two major differences between his position on the intelligence of black people and your position. The first is that his thoughts are based on performance on the best metrics devised by social scientists to measure intelligence, while your thoughts are based on the fact that black people tend to share ideas about God professed by a majority of Americans including the President rather than the ideas about God shared by you and John Derbyshire.

The second is that you appear to lack the intellectual capacity and/or courage to state the obvious consequences of your thoughts about religion as they relate to a judgment about the intelligence of different races.

I would suggest that if someone had written the exact same article and subbed out Blacks for "NASCAR Fans", it would be a big hoot in Santa Monica and the Upper West Side.

I was surrounded by NY elitists for years and am fully versed in the way that they "talk" about flyover country. To hear them speak, every gathering of Southern whites, whether it's church ladies or NASCAR fans, is just a couple of cloth hoods away from a lynching. I'm not saying what Derb said was right but I am saying that all tribes do it - Blacks, Elitist Whites, Hispanics, Atheists like hatboy. Everyone needs to get off their fainting couch and stop pretending it doesn't happen.

"Well, they silenced John and Ken (by castration) last month, Derbyshire this month."

Castrated? lol I thought the advertisers are the customers. J and K thinking it's hi-larious to call a recently deceased woman a crack ho may be funny to some, but not to all. Derb apparently wanted to move on with a heap o' publicity.

I like that Jeff Goldstein (http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=39245) took time to point out a few items worth noting:

"Eric Holder famously noted that we’re afraid to talk about race in this country. Derbyshire proved he, at least, isn’t. And his comrades are crawling over themselves to gain distance.

And the reason is, Holder, the left, the “pragmatic” right — they don’t really want to talk about such things. They only want to talk about the need to talk about such things, while simultaneously demonizing any real attempts to do so. An easier way to bank some cheap grace you won’t find in a PC-soaked society."

i read the article. he simply said “look at the statistics…and use common sense” in your daily activities. apparently, statistical facts are just too shocking for the delicate sensibilities of some folks. is it better to pretend that none of it’s true ? how can things improve if we are too afraid to face reality ? shouting “that’s racist!” solves nothing.

Shouting "that's socialist!" or "that's fascist!" solves nothing, either. But it does seem that the outrage and rot on the left invariably seems to involve some latte-drinking shithead trying to force people to live in a certain way, doesn't it?

And it seems like so much outrage and rot on the right seems to involve people who are in some way using race or class as a reason for some misguided conclusion. That's why this business in Florida has traction, by the way. That's why the typically, utterly false media narrative against the right is able to quickly gain traction.

Andy R. is an anti-religious bigot worse than any racist. Sorry, Andy. And your bigotry is much worse than Derbyshire's. At least he is an artist about it. At least he can write mellifluous bigotry. All you can do is spout the one ugly note again and again.

Derbyshire is on chemo for lymphoma. I wondered if he might have 'chemo brain.'

In fact, on march 8, 2012 he said he had it:"There is also the phenomenon of “chemo brain.” It strikes different people different ways. The way it strikes me is that nothing’s interesting anymore. Part of my editorial duties is trawling through news sources looking for interesting items. With chemo brain, there aren’t any. Nothing’s interesting."

My experience is that the steroids in addition to the chemo makes people say and do stupid things.

A friend of mine lost his job not too long after chemo for some paranoid stuff he did and said.

Back in his militaristic days Andrew Sullivan called out Derbyshire on a bizarre attack on the Irish. At the time I thought it was some kind of parody and both men were playing along. But it wasn't and Derbyshire should have been fired long ago.

My experience is that the steroids in addition to the chemo makes people say and do stupid things.

A friend of mine lost his job not too long after chemo for some paranoid stuff he did and said.

My uncle, who had high-grade adenocarcinoma (probably as a result of being irradiated by the government when he was young and living in St George, Utah), was on a very, very harsh regimen of chemotherapy (Avastin, Carboplatin, Taxol) and we talked about how it was affecting his personality. He became a ghost of a person. Then he started having seizures and we learned that his brain was full hundreds of metastatic lesions. Then he died. Turned out it was cancer brain rather than chemo brain.

In other words, the life of the mind and of the soul is a mystery. I try to take things as they are, rather than turning everything into a diagnosis.

What Crack has said here rings truest to me. Many of the items I read on Derb's list have been told to me in private by close black friends.

It may we be 'chemo brain'. I've seen it happen. Nothing strips a person to the core and clears the fog like chemo.

Chemo Brain is brute force enlightenment. Listen to what these people say and watch what they do carefully. They have lost all the filters of politeness, self-interest and so on, and nothing remains but a burning core of their personal truth.

It's shocking at times and you may find yourself feeling 'embarrassed' for them. Don't. The joke's on you. *We* are the ones who are deluded, foggy-minded and most in need of the ego-constraining influence of acute embarrassment.

"Poor John Derbyshire. Like Pee Wee Herman, he was brought down by his own hand."

No, he was brought down by people he thought were his friends but, instead, were cowardly examples of why we are doomed (His last book) if this is an example of our defenders. My pessimism about NOvember just stepped up a notch.

The pathetic thing is that all non-blacks live their lives in accordance with Derb's suggestions.

I live in New Jersey. The next town over, not having their own high school, used to send their children to the high school in the town of Englewood. Englewood "went black" however, so rather then send their children to a mostly black high school, they either moved to a new town, sent their children to private school, or to Jewish high schools (most of the remaining whites are Orthodox Jews).

The people in question are liberal Democrats for the most part, the sort of people who would probably exclaim "That Derbyshire guy is a racist!!" at the exact same time as they live their lives according to the rules he described.

Michael -- The only way the piece is defensible is if it was satire, but even then it falls on its own merits because satire that fails to work as satire is squarely the fault of the writer. Satire is hard.

This changes nothing about the fact that Romney will be president. Don't be ridiculous.

The people in question are liberal Democrats for the most part, the sort of people who would probably exclaim "That Derbyshire guy is a racist!!"

Rich Lowry is not a liberal Democrat. Please make a note of it.

Yes, but in the statement firing Derb, Lowry didn't make any mention of race or racism. Probably because, just like here, many of the readers at NRO hold deeply racist views and don't want to be called out over it. That Lowry is a giant coward who employed a racist for many years and then was afraid to call him out for his racism when it became so extreme that said writer had to finally be fired does not speak particularly well of modern conservatism.

Our lovely host here also didn't manage to describe the column as racist. What a mysterious omission.

Yes, but in your statement of douchebaggery, you didn't make any mention of religion or your disgusting anti-religious bigotry. Probably because, like always, you and your douchebag friends hold deeply anti-religious views and don't want you are a giant coward and an even bigger douchebag who rants against religious people constantly and yet are upset when people call you an anti-religious bigot fuckwad does not speak particularly well of you, or modern leftism.

You failed to mention that you are an anti-religious bigot fuckwad as well. What a mysterious omission.

"Michael -- The only way the piece is defensible is if it was satire, but even then it falls on its own merits because satire that fails to work as satire is squarely the fault of the writer. Satire is hard."

I would appreciate seeing someone who disagrees with Derb go through a point by point refutation of his piece. Some of it is satire, such as remarks about claiming blacks as best friends. The rest is just truth that, it seems, there is great resistance to admitting.

Lowry may very well have just killed off NRO and National Review. I don't have to pay for cowards, they are all around us. The comments at the original piece are voluminous but split roughly 50-50.

The worst aspect of this is Derb's illness, which I was not aware of. Lowry has shown he knows the rule about friends under attack. Stab them in the back so it will be over sooner. Coward.

There's a pretty big difference between pointing it out in a political discussion (or comedy routine which focuses on public policy issues) and teaching it as a life-lesson to your children as a warning to prejudge people based on their color, as opposed to their actions, how they present themselves, etc.

Oh, bullshit. People prejudge other people based on their color every single day of their lives.

That's why you do NOT live in a majority black neighborhood, even though you could buy property there for a bargain.

You, OTOH, are a dimwitted moron who responded to an observation about how real people behave in the real world with the the insufferably inane "Rich Lowry is not a liberal Democrat. Please make a note of it."

Michael -- Here is what I wish for you. I wish that tonight, as Easter looms, traders with guns will take you forcibly by ship to a faraway land, in chains, and sell you. I wish that you will be held captive and forced to work with no food until you die.

I further wish that the children of the children of the children of your children's children will be written about as if they are likely criminals because of the color of their skin. And I wish some douchebag will say that there is a fictitious, wholly made up number about how smart people are, and that your descendants have a low fictitious, wholly made up number.

That's why you do NOT live in a majority black neighborhood, even though you could buy property there for a bargain.

And thus does the racist reveal his fundamental error. People do not choose to live in majority black neighborhoods because majority black neighborhoods tend to be poor, because black people tend to be poor. It's not an issue of skin color. It's an issue of wealth, and lack of wealth.

Myself, I have black neighbors. And they are rich. Much richer than me. Their house is ginormous. They drive a Mercedes. Like me, they choose to live in a nice place because they have money.

But take your mental shortcuts. It must work for you. After all, I'm sure your wholly made-up, fictional smartness number is astronomical.

No one says that intelligence doesn't exist. Of course it does. What does not exist is any number that attaches to intelligence. Only crackpots believe that there is some number you can attach to smartness or, worse, that this number is somehow related to skin color.

I have a high IQ number, yet I don't believe in the concept at all. The idea that intelligence can be measured and quantified as a number, through the medium of a test, is ridiculous.

I spent much of my childhood failing other standardized tests and basically being told I was average, until I took whatever test determines "IQ" and suddenly I received excited attention from various teachers and officials at my public school. I was put into different classes and did just as badly in those as I did in the "average" level classes. Meanwhile, I was reading my late aunt's college-level philosophy books in my spare time, and teaching myself how to build electrical circuits, and making hundreds of drawings of everything I could.

There's a difference between intelligence and the quantification of intelligence. The number never did me any good, and just made me distrust so-called experts.

No highly intelligent person worth their salt cares about the fiction of "IQ".

But responding to the point that non-black people already behave exactly as Derbyshire says they should - and that they do so even when they are people like you and Andy who pat themselves on the back for how non-racist you are - with the question who fired Derbyshire?", is one.

I live in a nice neighborhood because I'm rich and I can, dude. It's as simple as that.

Meanwhile, take a drive through Shannon County, Missouri. Note the single-wide trailers and the buses on concrete blocks and the abject property. And I'll personally give you $100 for every black person you see.

I do love this comment, though:

Wealth and lack of wealth is in fact closely linked to a variety of genetic traits.

I fucking love it! You've captured the essence of why so many MENSA members have so much money and aren't slouching around at low-level technical jobs and as cab drivers.

I mean, you've really hit the nail on the head. Smartness and wealth correlate. Indeed. In the four corners of your mind, you've got it all figured out.

Whatever you think about John Derbyshire (his opinions about homosexuality made me uninterested in reading him long ago), the National Review really does suck these days. Lowry is a big pussy, and most of the rest of the regulars are small people with small ideas.

I'm technically a "genius" (another false concept) and yet I'm currently struggling to survive, for various health and personal reasons. But I'm (fairly) young, so things will get better, because I have the capacity to make them better.

Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate with income.

I also live in an ethnically diverse, economically-mixed neighborhood. If I could get out of here, I would.

But it's not race that's the problem, it's culture. Race is as meaningless as quantifiable intelligence.